Evaluation of a postal screening questionnaire to identify the physically disabled

Area of Science:

• Public Health
• Epidemiology
• Gerontology

Background:

• Accurate identification of disabled individuals in the community is crucial for resource allocation and service provision.
• Existing methods for disability screening, such as postal questionnaires, may have limitations in capturing the full spectrum of disability.
• Understanding the concordance between different assessment methods is essential for refining screening protocols.

Purpose of the Study:

• To compare the effectiveness of a postal screening questionnaire versus an interviewer-administered questionnaire in identifying disabled persons.
• To evaluate the definition of disability used in the postal survey, including activities of daily living, medical problems, and service use.
• To assess the awareness of general practitioners (GPs) regarding disability among their patients.

Main Methods:

• A postal screening questionnaire was administered to a random sample of 793 adults in a general practice setting.
• A subset of respondents underwent an interviewer-administered questionnaire to compare responses.
• General practitioners also completed screening questionnaires based on practice records for comparison.

Main Results:

• A 91% response rate was achieved for the postal questionnaire, classifying 89 individuals as disabled.
• Seventy-eight percent of respondents changed their answers during interviews, decreasing to 29% when service use was excluded from the disability definition.
• No individuals identified as disabled by the postal survey were classified as non-disabled by interview; interviews did not reclassify non-disabled respondents.

Conclusions:

• Postal screening questionnaires are effective in identifying disabled individuals, demonstrating high specificity with no false negatives.
• Interviewer-administered questionnaires provide more comprehensive disability data, suggesting limitations in postal surveys for detailed assessment.
• General practitioners showed limited awareness of reported disability items, particularly medical problems, compared to difficulties with daily living activities.